Re: For those who care about batik
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>> Could you check all that, please ?
> fop v0.95 needs Batik 1.7. I agree that it should go to experimental
> first.
> It seems that it needs this version for WMF stuff (at least).
> I also changed gcj to openjdk6.
Perfect. I added a runtime dependency on batik 1.7 too, just to be sure...
>> In addition, the debian/copyright file needs updating: most of the
>> files are Apache 2.0 (and not 1.1), but some files are public domain.
>> You might also want to make it a little more clear how the .dfsg archive
>> was made... (debian/README.debian only says about 0.94.dfsg, not the
>> 0.95 version !).
> Where did you see files in public domain ?
Using licensecheck, I picked up a few -- I'll have a look into it later.
> I udpated the README.Debian and took the opportunity to add a script to
> repack the archive.
> See revision 7120.
Great !
>> BTW, it probably would be worth trying to adapt fop.sh and
>> fop-ttfreader.sh to the java-wrappers stuff, in order to offer a more
>> consistent interface with batik and other programs too - but I can do
>> that, since I wrote java-wrappers, after all ;-)...
> You are welcome :)
I switched fop.sh to java-wrappers. You can see that it lead to a
significant decrease of the size ;-)... Could you check it works fine ?
If that is the case, I'll switch the other wrapper too, and we'll upload
to main/experimental (there are no reasons to keep it out of main, now !).
Cheers,
Vincent, glad that things are going on, even if we definitely are too
late for Lenny...
--
Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer
http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it
was that quite often, it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
-- Terry Pratchet, Guards, guards !
Vincent, listening to Send Me An Angel (Scorpions)
Reply to: